[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Switching from Bugzilla to Github Issues [UPDATED]
Richard Smith via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Apr 24 14:36:17 PDT 2020
On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 14:13, Sam McCall via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 9:03 PM Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 04/24/2020 03:24 AM, Sam McCall wrote:
>> > clangd's experience using github issues to track bugs (in a separate
>> repo) has been very positive, and I'm glad you're pushing on this!
>> > Part of this has been that our issue tracker has been scoped to our
>> subproject only, which is a scope that the tool works well for (on the user
>> and developer side).
>> > As such I don't think we should migrate clangd to a using the monorepo
>> bugtracker. Email subscription to a label is better than nothing, but worse
>> than a separate repo.
>> > Removing the clangd label from the monorepo bugtracker seems like the
>> simplest thing, though I'm happy to work on auto-moving bugs if that's
>> > (I'd suggest considering the same for other subprojects, though I know
>> that's not a popular opinion here)
>> I think it's important for everything in the monorepo to use the same bug
>> There are advantages to having code in the monorepo (e.g. free
>> updates for API changes, a more consistent build experience, etc.).
>> But there are also costs, as you have pointed out, like having to use
>> a less than ideal bug tracker. It's really up to sub-projects
>> to make the decision about whether these benefits are worth the costs.
>> The flang developers have just gone through this process and have
>> had to make some sacrifices to get the code in, but ultimately felt the
>> sacrifices were worth it.
>> I think it hurts the ability of developers and users to collaborate
>> if the infrastructure for the project is spread across too many different
>> And good collaboration is key for a project of this size with some many
>> connected components.
> (sorry, I should probably not tilt at this windmill. More on-topic stuff
> below, I promise!)
> Right, and I think having a single-project view of the LLVM organization
> is a mistake: it's a graph of projects, some are highly connected and some
> are not.
> The monorepo has a strong technical reason: the graph is connected and
> accepting a CI boundary anywhere is expensive in the absence of stable APIs.
> But this is much less true for bug tracking systems: the cost to crossing
> boundaries is smaller.
> For clangd, the benefit of sharing a tracker with clang AST+Sema is less
> than the cost of sharing a tracker with clang codegen, LLVM proper, LLD,
> flang, MLIR, ... (and the opposite is true for source control/CI).
> Anyway, this is going to depend on what part(s) of the project graph you
> touch: people connected to many parts will want to make coordinating with
> hundreds of people incrementally, while people connected to few parts are
> far better served by communicating only with the people they need to
> (communication famously scales badly).
I would assume we will eventually want to open up our github repository to
pull requests. When that happens, if you use a separate bugtracker then
clangd issues will be split across the two: pull requests will be sent to
the monorepo because (as far as I'm aware) a pull request for a repo can
only be sent to that repo's issue tracker, but your "regular" issues will
be elsewhere. And even that is a rosier picture than I expect you'll
actually experience: people will file issues for clangd on the issue
tracker attached to the clangd repository, simply because that's how the
github workflow works in general. So if you keep a separate issue tracker,
I think you will de facto end up with two issue trackers for clangd, and
will spend some amount of ongoing effort managing that. So, I think you
might be underestimating the costs here if you've not taken that into
account already. That said, moving issues between repos is apparently
feasible, so it seems like we could use clangd as an experiment to find out
how major or minor these concerns actually are.
Getting back to the proposal we are discussing. Do you have any specific
>> for improvements that might help make it align better with the kind of
>> the clangd users and developers are looking for?
> Sorry if it seemed I was trying to derail: I think sharding into multiple
> repos *is* a specific improvement that should be considered, though there
> are arguments against it.
> If "the proposal we are discussing" doesn't admit changes, well, I'm +1 on
> its current form too :-)
> Other suggestions:
> Issue templates: I think you need at least one for each component.
> Users will be less familiar with the bug tracker conventions than
> developers are, especially given that this one is unusual in covering
> multiple products. Forcing a choice between the "component" tags as well as
> guiding them to include relevant info leaves less of an unstructured mess
> to triage. This helps mitigate the fact that the UI won't separate
> component tags like "lld" from others like "crash-on-invalid".
> (Fortunately these don't need to be maintained centrally: editing
> templates just needs commit access)
> Tag namespace: I can see this becoming a mess quickly, it's hard to choose
> the right tags if there are too many, so there can be a bit of a
> tragedy-of-the-commons. (Seeding it with lots of "component" tags doesn't
> help). Maybe these should be centrally designed.
> I wonder if the "projects" feature can be used for components? It's not
> really the intended purpose (looks like they're supposed to be time-limited
> like sprints) but maybe they can work as a second tag namespace, and the
> name fits...
> Releases: my most active times on bugzilla are when dealing with release
> blockers in the run-up to a release. As GH issues lacks blocking bugs, I'm
> a bit curious what the workflow is for this (and probably worth considering
> before the release is upon us). I guess "projects" might be a good fit.
> Preserving bug numbers: seems worth it to me, but I have no special
> Again, thanks a lot for working on this, I think it'll be a substantial
> improvement to land it in any form (however much I end up using it myself).
>> - Tom
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev